We indulge more Christopher Hitchens than he is probably worth. The
guy is an interesting hybrid of old-school trotskyist and
opportunist neo-con. We think he fits nicely as an
imperialist-minded bolshevik amongst imperialist-minded
capitalists. However you choose to classify his opinions, motivations,
or ideologies, he has always been a tough intellectual to ignore--not
because of the strength of his arguments, but because they seem to
float entirely on pretentious certainty.

Hitchens thumbed a ride on the Get Saddam! train and went from
obscure leftist oddity (railing against the treachery of such villians as Mother Teresa) to recognizable pro-Bush pundit on the
white-ringer chicken circuit. As a lefty amongst the Bushies, it
hasn't improved his reasoning any. He seems to have been dumbed down to an embarassing level, even for a semi-reformed trotskyist.

Like everyone who advocated unprovoked war, Hitchens has had to
slowly draw back many of his arguments as the facts manifest their
utter absurdity. Which isn't to say that he has conceded to reality or
has admitted to perpetuating lies; the man simply refuses to learn anything. Noticeably, his own jihad against pacifists and peaceniks has shifted. He has gone from calling pacifism an immoral cop out (shades of Mother Teresa!) to calling opponents of the Iraq War not really pacifists at all.

Although he has repeated himself constantly, his September article
in the Weekly Standard best shows his either dubious or dishonest
claims. He even reduces his war achievements to a list of 10
accomplishments "to be proud of."

Of these 10 accomplishments, we find at least 6 of these to be unrelated to the Iraqi invasion.

Libya's surrender of a mothballed WMD program was the work of Clinton's diplomacy--but if this were a reaction to the Iraqi invasion, does Libya's WMD shutdown make up for Iran's WMD buildup, which is a direct response to the war in Iraq?

A. Q. Khan's nuclear network was known to exist well before the Iraq invasion. Khan had also retired from his nuclear secrets business well before invasion.

Significant reform in the UN is not happening, and having its most powerful member piss all over it will never be an instigator for productive change. The oil-for-food scandal has since been resolved and the UN largely exonerated.

Before the war, Hans Blix was able to certify Iraq as disarmed. It wasn't the word of a madman, it was fucking Hans Blix who said there was nothing there.

The progress of the Kurdish minority well before the war was actually something popularized by Hitchens himself! Whereas before the war the Kurds had their own autonomy and democratic experiment, now they must share in the troubles of greater Iraq's destabilization and blood feuds.

Popular movements in Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon are not entirely unrelated to the US invasion of their neighbor. However, these movements are not empowered by the presence of a foreign army, they are provoked. We will likely see future popular movements more akin to the kind which swept out Iran's reformers to make way for Bush-style militarism.

Two of the accomplishments from his list are simply fantastical. There never was a Taliban-Baathist pact, and whatever point he was trying to make about France and Germany breaking treaties with Iran is simply unfathomable.

This leaves only one certifiable accomplishment: turning Iraq into a bloodbath for Islamists. Of course, it's also turning into a bloodbath for all Iraqis. And Americans.

Hitchens' last point, which seems to be the only argument he has left, is that the Iraq War is serving as a useful training ground for upcoming invasions.

The training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen and
women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism, which
training and hardening will surely be of great use in future combat.

Since September, Hitchens has coalesced his defense of the Iraq invasion almost entirely to the premise that the US needs to be conducting this occupation as a dry run for invasions to come.

Of all the ridiculous justifications for invading and occupying
Iraq, Christopher Hitchens' assertion that the war was necessary
because it offers valuable experience in invading and occupying other
countries is perhaps the stupidest and most fascist apologetic we've ever heard. You can take the empire out of Britain, but you can't take imperialism out of the Briton.

For the first time in his career as a professional intellectual Hitchens has finally distinguished himself for the ages. Christopher Hitchens, for all his strained reasoning and effete bitchiness on so many issues, has conceived and delivered possibly the worst excuse for war ever delivered with a straight face. Without any literary achievements to speak of, Hitchens can finally be welcomed into the Western canon. We suggest face first.

Senate Democrats again squandered a golden opportunity to get what
they needed out of the Alito hearings. With multiple judicial colleagues
lining up to vouch for the character of Sam Alito, they could have hit
these judges up for the information that the obfuscating nominee won't divulge.

In a dream world, with a legitimate and smart opposition party, we think the hearings could have gone very differently. Let's step into this world of our imagination and pretend, just pretend, that there is hope for America.

Enter the Senate chambers. A panel of Samuel Alito's judicial colleagues sit at the witness table. This panel of judges remain remarkably composed after two hours of hearings. Judge Toady, an ostensibly liberalish justice is the primary witness and has successfully reassured Senator after Senator that Judge Alito is a good friend and a fair judge. Senator Backbone, a craggy Blue State politician with many years of experience, takes command of the hearings.

Senator Backbone: Yeah, thanks Judge. It's nice to know that your
fellow Judge here--who will essentially be your boss once he gets this
promotion--is a nice guy of great integrity, yadda-yadda-yadda.... But
Judge, aren't you a man of great integrity? Any one of you guys.
What's wrong with your integrity?

Judge Toady: Nothing Senator, I have impeccable integrity. Ask
Alito, he'll tell you, just like I told you about his impeccable
integrity.

Senator Backbone: Right, you got the integrity.

Judge Toady: In spades, Senator. In spades.

Senator Backbone: What about your smarts? Are you up to par with the Alito intellect? You're not as smart as he is, are you?

Senator Backbone: Splendid. You're educated. (sniffs) The finest
education money can buy. Trained in all the legal arts from the most
brilliant legal minds.

Judge Toady: You want to see my degrees, my citations, my letters
of recommendation... I carry them with me. (Ducks under the table to
reach his briefcase.)

Senator Backbone: No, please Judge. We introduced you with a
healthy resume. Let the record show that Judge Toady is a
well-respected, well-liked, well-educated, and eminently qualified
jurist.

Judge Toady: Thank you.

Senator Backbone: Now that we've established that you're highly
qualified for your own judgeship and, incidentally, qualified to judge
a Judge's character, let me ask you the big one: Are you qualified to
be a Supreme Court Justice?

Judge Toady: With all humility Senator, I think I am.

Senator Backbone: You think you are? As qualified as Judge Alito?

Judge Toady: Well, I have been a judge longer, as well as my years
as both a prosecutor and defense attorney... but really Senator, Judge
Alito is more than qualified. (winks into the camera)

Senator Backbone: That wasn't the question, Judge. (tears off
reading glasses and spits into the microphone) We've established Judge
Alito's credentials with your stirring testimonial! The issue before
you is whether you are as qualified as Judge Alito to serve on the Supreme Court!

Judge Toady: Since you keep pressing me, Senator, let me just say
that, with all appearances, I am at least as qualified as Judge Alito
to serve on the Supreme Court.

Senator Backbone: Yes, by all accounts you are at least as
qualified as Judge Alito to serve on the Supreme Court. That said,
Judge Toady, why didn't the President pick you to serve on the Supreme
Court?

Senator Backbone: Judge, in your distinguished career I find it
hard to believe that you haven't bagged a gaggle of friends. Yer a
freaking Appellate Judge, fer chrissake... you obviously have
connections.

Judge Toady: Maybe not the right connections, I imagine.

Senator Backbone: C'mon Judge! With all due respect, are you
suggesting that Judge Alito will surpass you onto the Supreme Court
because he has better connections than you.

Judge Toady: Not at all... I didn't mean to suggest that the Judge's nomination is the result of friends in high places.

Senator Backbone: Why, Judge? Why is Judge Alito getting the call
and not you? Why would the President look at the pool of distinguished
judges, look past your many accomplishments, your brilliant rulings,
and point at Alito and say "Him! I want him!"

Judge Toady: (jumping to feet in tears) Because he's a right-wing
shill! Everyone knows it! Oh gawd! The President wants a right wing
stooge! If he packs the court with wingnuts, they can control
everything... get away with everything! Everything!

Senator Backbone: (Not letting the Judge catch his breath) How do you know he's a right-wing stooge?

Judge Toady: The same way the President knows! Are you fucking
kidding me? It's all there, it's not a secret! You think it's
accidental that he always votes the way he votes? Grow up Senator! If
he were any more conservative he'd be wearing a buckle on his hat!

Silence fills the Senate Chambers. Red State Senators who smiled and joked with Judge Toady only minutes before, now furl their brows and stare daggers at the flustered justice. The complete Fox News programming schedule for
next three weeks can be summarized in two words: Get Toady!

So Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination Senate hearings shall commence. The purpose of this circus is not to determine how he will vote as a Justice of the Supreme Court. We already know that.

Sam Alito may be a fine man of great integrity and intellectual stature, but so is Antonin Scalia. His stellar character and brilliance will be of little comfort when he assists in completely dismantling whatever semblance of progressive accomplishment we have in this country. Justice Alito's kindness and jocularity with other judges will not devastate the American way of life, his right-wing reflexes will.

As other nations see the wisdom of abolishing the death penalty, when they take away from the State its biggest imposition--the right to kill its constituents--Alito will ensure that the United States holds its trajectory somewhere outside of modernity. In so many other issues, Alito will guarantee that our society 's legal values in terms of personal liberty and State morality grows closer to Islamic states than Western states. As modernity and social progress reaches the rest of the globe, ours will be a slow march backwards. Perhaps not so slow. His personal demeanor is of no consequence to this inevitability.

None of this has to do with Alito's qualifications either. Eminently qualified individuals upheld slavery, men of reputedly high character sustained segregation. Men with no overt affiliations with unsavory organizations have rendered judgments which impede human progress and trample inalienable liberty.

Since it is given that the good Judge will not answer direct questions about impending issues, for whatever reasons, wouldn't a better strategy be to veer away from the topic of law? Everyone knows why Sam Alito was chosen by Bush. Indeed, Sam Alito most definitely knows why he was selected. Why not ask him what that reason is?

Let’s imagine a country, shall we? Let’s pretend this make-believe country operated in a democratic fashion where the citizens not only chose their own leaders, but they directly voted on the most significant actions their country would ever take. You’d probably think that the citizens of this country were well represented in the actions that they take collectively.

But, continuing the illusion, what if the citizens whose minority interests were not always represented decided that they should, therefore, have veto power over their own tax money. After all, the country’s leadership only represents the majority interest of its citizens; so, shouldn’t all citizens have control over how their tax money is spent? Rather than answer that directly, let’s just ask ‘How effective would this country be if all its citizens had a line-item veto over its governmental budget?’

The answer should be obvious. And the purpose of Proposition 75 should also be obvious.

Proposition 75 ostensibly gives public service union members the right to withdraw their union membership dues from political contributions and public relations campaigns. This initiative seeks to do what no governing body in the world would or could abide: giving individual members line-item veto power over the organization's budget.

With Schwarzenegger’s popularity implosion due almost entirely to a well-orchestrated media blitz by these very unions, is it any wonder the Republicans are trying to destroy them? Of course, destroying unions is a Republican reflex thoroughly welded into their core values. And Prop 75 is all about destroying unions.

As the name defines itself, unions exist as a collective power. The only way to neuter a union is to fray its collective nature. Prop 75 is the thread by which Republicans hope to unravel the challenge to their power which unions represent. As very democratic institutions—infinitely more democratic than what we tolerate from our federal government—why can’t this issue be resolved within the union, if in fact it is such a point of internal contention? Why is the non-union general public settling this internal dispute on a ballot initiative? Union members are currently able to choose their leadership and to have direct votes on decisions important enough to supercede the authority of their representatives: we should have such democracy in all our public institutions! These unions are well suited to handle the internal disputes of its membership.

That said, we’re not sure this Proposition will be as effective at destroying the public unions as its proponents wish. Being democratic institutions, the decisions made by its leadership are already broadly accepted by its membership. And if they remain smart, the unions can adjust to whatever shortfalls may ensue from their minority disgruntled membership. Nevertheless, defeating this proposition should be a high priority for all working people.

It’s worth noting that on the official California Voting Guide the first name in support of this amendment is Milton Friedman. His title is simply Nobel Prize Winner. We’re not sure why Friedman would dedicate himself to the inner workings of public unions in California. We suspect that Prop 75 simply fits nicely into this University of Chicago economist’s general predisposition towards union-busting and dictator-fellating—no, he didn’t win the Nobel Prize for peace, just for contributing to the decimation of Latin American economies and democracies.

Yesterday, yet another activist judge ruled that compelling children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional. We can only imagine the fury this event will unleash, even in the wake of Hurricane Katrina’s deadly aftermath and the realization to many that they do not live in the country they thought they did.

There are many ways that we could address this ruling, and its inevitable backlash.

We could remind people that not everyone in this country believes in a god, gods, providence, intelligent design, destiny, or any other supernatural phenomenon. We could say that yes, these people do represent a minority opinion in this country, but that even a minority objection should be enough to broker some kind of neutrality on the subject, especially in a country born of compromise to minority interests.

We could point to the First Amendment and its establishment clause. We could argue that compelling public schoolchildren to endorse the idea that their country exists at the mercy of a god is, at the very least, a kind of religious establishment. We could say that the word “God” is not an ubiquitous non-denominational generality devoid of meaning. Were it so, nobody would object to its deletion.

We could say that those who feel obliged to offer an acknowledgement to their god would not be affected by this ruling. We could say that such people are perfectly able to celebrate the union of god and government, which they see as a divine gift. Such people will forever be free to make offerings, public or private, to the god that has blessed them with such good governance. This ruling applies only to public schools that compel all children to perform this ritual of loyalty. The absence of enforcement, we might argue, does not constitute prohibition.

We could cite the history of the Pledge. We could show that its original form apparently warranted no “under God” stipulations. We could argue that the McCarthy Congress perverted Francis Bellamy’s 1892 original. We could say that this 1954 Red-scared Congress very pointedly and deliberately added religious context as an inoculation against godless Communism. We might also suggest that this particular Congress, so steeped in its segregationist madness, was less a moral authority than a monumental stain on our nation’s heritage.

We could show that Francis Bellamy was quite public in his racism, that he despised the oncoming wave of Southern European immigrants and their religious allegiance to papal supremacy. We could suggest that his Pledge of Allegiance was Bellamy’s way of indoctrinating these masses to American loyalties and of diminishing the influence of a foreign church in his country. We could revel in the irony that a ritual designed to limit religious influence is now a tool to prescribe religion.

We could repeat the story of how the original pledge ritual involved a kind of Sieg Heil! stance, which by World War II was embarrassing enough to be replaced with a hand over the heart.

We could say that the arguments in favor of “under God” are the arguments against it. If “under God” is not an endorsement of religion, then why do the religious clergy demand that non-religious children be compelled to recite it?

We could expose the obvious: the ritualized declaration of loyalty to an inanimate object constitutes idolatry. We acknowledge human sentimentality and the need to romanticize the familiar, but pledging loyalty, in a ceremonial fashion, is the very definition of worship.

Worshipping graven images, symbols of greater power, is, or at least was in the past, a serious sin to monotheists. We couldn’t possibly explain the motivation of alleged monotheists in prompting schoolchildren to openly commit the most egregious sin in their canon. We don’t understand how this could be pleasing to the god who exhaustively prohibited this activity.

Of course, the inclusion of “under God” by mere mortals into this ritual would seem to be a way of insinuating their god’s consent to this whole practice: so long as he receives tribute, he will abide. Perhaps this explains their devotion to the “under God” provision. Without it, they risk the wrath and damnation of a jealous god. Without “under God”, the Pledge must be an abomination.

Any one of these arguments could be persuasive enough. And indeed, variations on these arguments will circulate and wind their way into the courts. Rather than make these arguments, we would much rather state a bold maxim that circumvents argumentation on this subject.

Free people pledge allegiance to nothing. Freedom defies allegiances, let alone necessitates their pledges. One is not free in devotion to governments, one is free in defiance of governments. Free people don’t worship an ideal; they live it.

So then, why is it the business of an allegedly free country to enforce loyalty, with or without the veneration of gods?

As the confirmation hearings on Judge Roberts proceed we must confess to being impressed by his quick intelligence. Of course, having your rights curtailed by smart people is no less comforting than having your life destroyed by dumb people.

Immediate kudos to Russ Feingold's line of questioning. Unlike Joe Biden, who let Roberts make him look a bit silly and pedantic, Feingold displayed an overwhelming command of the issues and specifics at hand and was slowly eating away at Roberts' reluctance to answer in a very smart and calculated way. Is Feingold a Presidential candidate? Why not? Can anyone imagine our current commander-in-chief speaking knowledgeably about any aspect of the law? Then again, can anyone imagine Bush conjugating his verbs?

But the most intriguing questioner we found was Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina. Senator Graham is a former JAG attorney and, as Republicans go, not a total idiot. However, he took whatever smarts he retains and tucked them deep into a dark hole where nobody could find them. His folksy approach was a direct contrast to Feingold's educated and prosecutorial examination. We suspect that his 'let's get rid of all this legal mumbo-jumbo and talk like real men' tactic had much to do with his re-election hopes. Or, more specifically, his Republican primary hopes. Graham has defined himself as a maverick Republican in the John McCain mold: joining McCain to block the "nuclear option", speaking out on global warming, and even expressing concern about torture. Mind you, none of this is especially noble, but it does distinguish him outside the rigid toe-the-line Republican structure. Being able to talk frankly, in a calculated way, about such absolutely non-important issues like flag-burning and prayer in school will enable Graham to return to South Carolina as the champion redneck his Republican faithful want him to be. Then again, maybe he just isn't that bright.

Why are Republicans and their fellow travelers so a'scared of Bush's Supreme Court nominee opening his yapper?

For weeks they've been running ad campaigns to soften the public to the idea of a content-free confirmation and now Republican Senators are openly begging John Roberts to say as little as possible.

The bizarro ad campaign, and rhetoric from Republican talking points parrots, promotes the logic that since Republicans were so nice to give Ruth Bader Ginsburg a free pass, Roberts is entitled to the same rubber stamp.

But Republicans own the Senate. They have the votes to confirm anyone Bush desires. And they know that the Democratic filibuster threat is easily dealt with, if in fact the Democrats ever decided to stand on principle. So if they have an easy majority, why all the mum?

Republicans, unlike Democrats, can and do actually win state-wide elections in places where their party platform is hugely unpopular. With all the talk of the Democrats' fortunes being lost with the South many Democrats don't see that the Republicans' success has been grounded in the North. In fact, Republicans control the government agenda because of five New England Senators from some very blue states. The defection of Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords reversed power in the Senate and New England could swing it again.

With only 13 states inclined to re-criminalize abortion, the so-called "pro-life" position won't win very many Republican Senate seats. The Republican Senators from blue states, most of whom declare themselves pro-choice, have profited from never having to confront the abortion issue either on the Senate floor or even in a contested election.

The amoral voters, the ones who gladly take their tax breaks and pretend they needn't worry about the breach of privacy by their government, may actually start to worry. And in a 51/49 political world, that worry doesn't bode well for Republicans.

Even the most degenerate of the anti-abortion Senators has to know that once abortion becomes a national political fight their power and agenda are gone. Perhaps permanently.

So, as long as Roberts keeps his mouth shut, as long as he doesn't expose himself as the final nail in the coffin for Roe v. Wade, then blue state Republicans have their cover: they can vote for him with no repercussions.

However, should Roberts hint too strongly at a rightward activist bent then the easy vote becomes kryptonite to the careers of politicians who have benefitted from the abortion issue being off the table.

Roberts' silence can ensure plausible deniability to all Senators, even if he morphs into Darth Vader as Chief Justice. Republican Senators don't want a fair hearing, they want ignorance. This is not a fight they can win: not if they have to fight each other.

Watching the current Roberts hearings we couldn't help but dry heave at the sight of Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn.

Coburn weepily pleaded for an end to "divisiveness", "partisanship", "polarization", and
"finger-pointing". We can only speculate that he is feeling the weight
of the backlash against Republican incompetence and is shaken to his frail little core.

For those who have forgotten, Coburn won his Senate seat by being one
the most divisive, partisan, polarizing, finger-pointing idiots to ever come out of
Oklahoma. In that campaign Coburn famously stated
that there was such an epidemic of lesbianism in
Oklahoma public schools that teachers would only let girls go to the
bathroom one at a time.

Coburn is a nasty bastard who, throughout his political career, has
stooped to anything to appeal to the very worst in his constituents. To
win his Senate seat he even declared to voters that it was a choice between good and evil. Guess who was good?

And yes, he was the Congressman who had the distinction of being so morally vapid that he took to the floor of the House of Representatives and screamed about the obscenity of "Schindler's List"
shown over the public airwaves. He wasn't screaming over the obscenity
of genocide, he was outraged by the nudity. Such stalwart stupidity is
rare, but not unknown, even in the Republican party.

So let the fucker cry. But not before serving him up a healthy dose of
the absolute evil that he has promoted in his public life.
Finger-pointing is the least of our wrath, Senator. The wars you
support, the taxes you cut for the wealthy, the debt you leave our
children, the families you undermine, the jobs you outsource, the lobbyists you appease, the
freedoms you curb, the freedoms you want to curb, and the divisiveness
you stir will not be forgotten.

Democrats should do more than gloat over the rumblings that made their way into executive action, as FEMA director Michael Brown's resume has been exposed as the kind of background you'd expect of an executive who could cluster-fuck relief efforts for the most devastating natural disaster in American history. Michael Brown returns to Washington to either A) hide under Bush's desk until his very own firestorm blows over (only to be rewarded at a later date), or B) sacrifice himself as the imposter who failed his President.

As Democrats rail against Brown and the President's incompetence will they also criticize their own, who also bear responsibility for their neglect of New Orleans' untouchables? There are four prominent Louisiana Democrats who should be held accountable for the pre and post-Katrina catastrophe: Governor Kathleen Blanco, Senator Mary Landrieu, Mayor Ray Nagin, and former Senator John Breaux.

Southern Democrats have won elections since the Civil Rights era in decreasing frequency. Southern Democratic politicians who do win elections are rarely more than heirs to a previous generation of segregationist Democrats who haven't yet switched parties. They're conservatives in the worst possible way. While they rely on every black vote they can get, they won't risk their political necks promoting African-American issues. They support every gun fetish imaginable. They court the insanely religious with every conceivable violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause. There is no war or military action they won't sign on to, regardless of rationale or dubiousness. And worst of all, they can be bought and used by any corporate or trade entity willing to belly up. All told, they are virtually indistinguishable from their Republican counterparts.

The extent of Governor Blanco's responsibility will be uncovered in time, but her initial reaction said much about her. None of it good.

Senator Mary Landrieu was quite capable of delivering pork projects to her state, why not proper levee construction? The hurricane winds and flooding waters will pale in comparison to the very unnatural wrath of creditors who will descend upon the destitute of Louisiana. What will their Senator say when they realize that she dismantled our bankruptcy laws, that they will have no protection from the greatest killer of all? Has the South abandoned all its lynching habits?

Former Senator John Breaux was Landrieu's role model. As a "moderate" Democrat he could ensure that "free trade" agreements would be passed without dissention. As Louisiana stagnated in poverty, John Breaux would vote regressive tax cuts to those who would shut down their factories for wages even cheaper than non-union Louisiana. Breaux did everything the Republican establishment could ever wish of him and precious little for his constituents.

And now to Mayor Ray Nagin. What exactly were his qualifications to be mayor? What were his qualifications to be a Democrat? Oh yeah, and where the fuck is he?

Before Democrats rush to defend this man, consider that he only joined the Democratic party when he ran for mayor. Since Republicans aren't electable in a very African-American city like New Orleans, this was not exactly a principled position. He was elected with the support of business interests and has worked tirelessly to protect them and only them. He has not done anything for the third of his city who live in poverty except to try to push them out. The Mayor presides over a rather cowardly police force, afraid of its own population. The Mayor and his staff have been primarily responsible for spreading the rumors of armed gangs and raping thugs; Such contempt for the poor is likely responsible for the deplorable Superdome and Convention Center quarantines: managing to both abandon and imprison the city's poorest residents in a central location.

There needs to be a blame game and there needs to be a severe reckoning. Hopefully Democrats can get their own house in order and remove these scumbag politicians before they do any more damage.

Just catching the last bit of Chris Matthews Sunday show (not something I recommend), I heard the ever-vapid Norah O'Donnell say that Bush's performance in the wake of Katrina was out of character since he's such a "crisis manager".

Now, where did this notion come from? Yes, we've heard it for the past four years from the parrotocracy and the commentarian elite, that Bush was a remarkable leader through the 9-11 crisis, but where's the evidence of that?

Bush did have a highly publicized and carefully orchestrated spontaneous moment amidst the rubble of the WTC. But how did vowing to get the "folks" who perpetrated that crime ever add up to anything more than a welcome moment of solidarity? Those "folks" are, after four years, still alive and, thanks to an unprovoked war in Iraq, growing in numbers and resources.

Bush did publicly read some stern scripts which his speech writers whipped up for such an occasion, but where was the crisis management? The horrors of 9-11 had run their course in a matter of hours. Where was the President at the greatest moment of crisis? Michael Moore has been promoted to public enemy numero uno by white ringers for reminding us of exactly where this stellar crisis manager was. In case you forgot, spend some time perusing the video and a fine analysis of the Presidential reaction. And also consider what the President remembers from his infamous clutch moment.

Bush's reaction to Hurricane Katrina is not out of character, it is quintessential W. President Bush is a crisis manager the way Bob Hope was a war veteran.